On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
> write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
> non-subscribers).
Sorry for replying again on this thread, but I found a few more arguments:
http://woozl
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> It may be common knowledge. It is not reflexive behaviour. People reach for
> plain reply by habit. Happens all the time, very common.
Since you are taking your assumptions as truth, I'll do the same:
The only people that have a "reply" r
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 12:10 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> Can the in-reply-to header be embedded in a mailto: link?
You can only really rely on the "to" address making through a mailto
link. And even then, it's only going to work when someone has a
configured mail client on the system.
It is
On 09Jul2010 12:03, Kwan Lowe wrote:
| On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
| wrote:
| [snip]
| > I also agree with the rest of your post (and see no reason to quote it
| > in its entirety :-), but I wonder if we're all just rearranging the
| > deckchairs on the Titanic when it com
On 11Jul2010 01:06, Felipe Contreras wrote:
| On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Tom H wrote:
| > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
| > wrote:
| >> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote:
| >>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
| >>> are in
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote:
>>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
>>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote:
>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
>> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
>>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
>>> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People
>>> will just hit reply
Tim:
>> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
>> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
>> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People
>> will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing.
Felipe Cont
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
>> clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality
>> is lost.
>
> Why does no-one ever me
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>> On 06Jul2010 09:47, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> | Well, the Reply-To
>> | munging will override the Cc and make all the replies go to the ml
>> | *only*.
>>
>> Your mail client is w
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim wrote:
> In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
> are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
> that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People
> will just hit reply, and expect it
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 09:24 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I wonder if we're all just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic
> when it comes to mailing lists. I have the impression that the whole
> ml thing is actually a poor man's Usenet, invented because everyone
> has mail.
I've had the
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> It doesn't double up the *to* addresses, when I reply here. I second
>>> the motion that it's most likely to be a gmail problem. Either what it
>>> does, or how you're using it.
>
> Tom H:
>> Thanks for the info.
>>
>> The way that I am using
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
[snip]
> I also agree with the rest of your post (and see no reason to quote it
> in its entirety :-), but I wonder if we're all just rearranging the
> deckchairs on the Titanic when it comes to mailing lists. I have the
> impression that
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:18 +0930, Tim wrote:
> A new post button, to write a new message to that group, that wasn't
> an erroneous reply to a prior post. A feature sadly lacking from mail
> clients when they're working with list mail, that could quite easily
> be added to the toolbar (or an alway
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:55:49 -0400
Chris Tyler wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 09:23 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:57:48 -0400
> > Chris Tyler wrote:
> >
> > > a process that takes a few seconds
> >
> > I understand the need to subscribe, but the process does
> > not take
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to,
> duh, reply to the list?
Probably because it's hardly ever seen as an option to the user (it's
hidden, or simply not offered). Mail clients are often quite awful, an
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 05:33 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> Tim has posted that he doesn't see this de-doubling on Yahoo.
Well, I should point out that I'm using Evolution for mail, even though
the mail goes through a yahoo address. We're lucky to still have POP3
access to the free yahoo mail service, here
Tim:
>> It doesn't double up the *to* addresses, when I reply here. I second
>> the motion that it's most likely to be a gmail problem. Either what it
>> does, or how you're using it.
Tom H:
> Thanks for the info.
>
> The way that I am using it?! LOL
Well, it had to be one of those two options
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>
> I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
> write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
> non-subscribers).
An unsurprisingly biased and inaccurate summary...
--
users mailing list
users@lists
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:43:10 -0430,
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> That surely is up to the receiver, not the sender. Furthermore, as it
> will vary from list to list it seems impractical to have to set it
> individually for each post if the MUA doesn't support it automatically
> (Evolution
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:14:23 -0430,
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
> > > clicking "reply to all"; it's
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:14:23 -0430,
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
> > clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality
> > is lost.
>
> Why does
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:16:41 +0300,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> However, were you strict in saying "no, deal with 'reply to all'"? If
> so, did your users managed?
Yes, my lists, my rules. I think there are mistakes from time to time, but
the lists are pretty low traffic in the first place
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:13 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:14:23 -0430
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> > Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh,
> > reply to the list?
>
> Probably because all the mail clients I've seen have it hidden
> somewhe
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:14:23 -0430
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh,
> reply to the list?
Probably because all the mail clients I've seen have it hidden
somewhere down inside some obscure pull-down and users don't
even know such a
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
> clicking "reply to all"; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality
> is lost.
Why does no-one ever mention "Reply To List" as the proper way to, duh,
reply to the list?
Hi,
I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
non-subscribers).
Before starting it's worth to keep in mind that munging is a *default*
that is possible to manually change, and some clients have the option
to i
dora users
>> date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM
>> subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
>> mailing list users.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this
>> mailing list
>> mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org
>> unsub
Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM
>> subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
>> mailing list users.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this
>> mailing list
>> mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org
>> unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailin
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> At least you can remove the "Your message to $foo awaits moderator
>> approval" automatic reply; it's clearly a lie.
>
> I don't receive those messages when I post from a non-subscribed
> address.
I did on the pack
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 13:02:37 +0300,
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>> Who are those mythical creatures that don't know about "reply to all"?
>> I keep hearing about them, but as far as I know everybody that knows
>> how to send email kno
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:02 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> You (Todd) and others have the following:
> fromFelipe Contreras
> reply-toCommunity support for Fedora users
>
> to Community support for Fedora users
> dateWed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM
> subject Re:
Tom H wrote:
> You (Todd) and others have the following:
> from Felipe Contreras
> reply-to Community support for Fedora users
>
> toCommunity support for Fedora users
> date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM
> subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriend
On Wednesday, 07 July, 2010 @ 10:19 zulu, Felipe Contreras scribed:
> Wrong; that spam mail is totally unrelated.
>
> Say moderation was enabled, and I was made moderator *today*. Would
> any extra spam reach your inbox? No.
>
> *I* (the moderator) would have to approve it first. If I'm bad at m
On Wednesday, 07 July, 2010 @ 05:43 zulu, Joel Rees scribed:
> Okay, the digest listing does give us the message-ID line from
> the headers, so it shouldn't be too hard to maintain threading
> with a little extra copy/paste. If your MUA doesn't provide a
> way to set arbitrary headers, though, th
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:41:20 -0500
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I have seen people ask about this on other lists (not related to Fedora)
> where I don't do reply munging.
That's the real key to the problem - so many lists do it so many
different ways that it is hard to keep track of what to do on
any
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 15:44:24 +0300,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> > Including plenty of people who explicitly ask not to be personally CCed,
> > yea, even to the point of putting such a request at the top of _every_
> > post they make.
>
> *Some* nut-jobs might not like to be Cc'ed. You stil
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 13:02:37 +0300,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> Who are those mythical creatures that don't know about "reply to all"?
> I keep hearing about them, but as far as I know everybody that knows
> how to send email knows to send mail to more than one recipient, which
> requires k
ort for Fedora users
date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:10 AM
subject Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
mailing listusers.lists.fedoraproject.org Filter messages from this
mailing list
mailed-by lists.fedoraproject.org
unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> At least you can remove the "Your message to $foo awaits moderator
> approval" automatic reply; it's clearly a lie.
I don't receive those messages when I post from a non-subscribed
address.
> For some reason when I receive mail from you I see:
> reply-to: Community suppo
Joel Rees wrote:
> Okay, the digest listing does give us the message-ID line from the
> headers, so it shouldn't be too hard to maintain threading with a
> little extra copy/paste. If your MUA doesn't provide a way to set
> arbitrary headers, though, that won't work after all.
If you use the MIME
Things are fine as they are. Most other lists work the same way. If
someone doesn't want to subscribe as they only want to ask one question,
then are not missed as most questions can be answered by actually doing
a bit of digging, which a lot of users on this list do not do. Also, if
they find
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 06Jul2010 09:47, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> | But the actual steps you have to do are different depending on the
> | list manager; majordomo is different than mailman.
>
> So? It is not _very_ different.
It is. Try it.
> | > It serves t
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, JD wrote:
> Just to end this debate: you all must have seen this spam post.
> If posting is opened to non-subscribers, this will multiply by thousands
> and millions.
Wrong; that spam mail is totally unrelated.
Say moderation was enabled, and I was made moderator
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members.
>>> This setting was made before any of the current list admins were
>>> present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more
>>> courteo
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:05:33 +0300,
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>> So if anything, Reply-To munging would cause more private mail go to
>> the mailing list (i.e. I typed 'r' in mutt, not 'g', but the mail went
>> to the ml!)
>
> That'
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 20:13 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Fact: the current system doesn't allow cross-posting
>
> Nothing in the current system prevents cross-posting. It's explicitly
> discouraged by the list Guidelines, but as we
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 22:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Anyway, if non-subscribers are not welcome, then I guess I'll just
>> refrain from posting here just like everybody else, even when I'm
>> asked to do it on Fedora's bugzilla.
Tim yahoo.com.au> writes:
>
> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 14:43 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> > I'm thinking it would be nice to have the html archives set up so
> > that, if you've logged in (as you do to change your mail settings),
> > you could click a link in the post and the list server would shi
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 14:43 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> I'm thinking it would be nice to have the html archives set up so
> that, if you've logged in (as you do to change your mail settings),
> you could click a link in the post and the list server would ship you
> a copy of the post you're looki
Okay, the digest listing does give us the message-ID line from the
headers, so it shouldn't be too hard to maintain threading with a
little extra copy/paste. If your MUA doesn't provide a way to set
arbitrary headers, though, that won't work after all.
I'm thinking it would be nice to have
no point in arguing the points. It is a priviledge to be on the list
and if he wants to post, but not be subscribed and he is not "a very important
person", then he should abide like others do.
Regards,
Antonio
P.S.
kill -9 thread="Re: Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-
On 06Jul2010 11:21, Bill Davidsen wrote:
| Tim wrote:
| > By the way. Loose - the opposite of tight. Lose - the opposite of win.
| > I'm so sick of people getting that wrong. That's a third year primary
| > school language mistake.
| >
| And a fact which doesn't impact the final outcome of som
On 06Jul2010 09:47, Felipe Contreras wrote:
| On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
| > On 05Jul2010 20:02, Felipe Contreras wrote:
| > | I mean that there are many steps involved, go to this page, fill this,
| > | wait for that, reply here, etc.
| >
| > The procedure of: fill i
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 11:21 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > By the way. Loose - the opposite of tight. Lose - the opposite of
> win.
> > I'm so sick of people getting that wrong. That's a third year
> primary
> > school language mistake.
> >
> And a fact which doesn't impact the final outcome o
Tim wrote:
> By the way. Loose - the opposite of tight. Lose - the opposite of win.
> I'm so sick of people getting that wrong. That's a third year primary
> school language mistake.
>
And a fact which doesn't impact the final outcome of something is moot, not
mute. Everyone has their favorit
On 07/06/2010 06:08 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 22:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Anyway, if non-subscribers are not welcome, then I guess I'll just
>> refrain from posting here just like everybody else, even when I'm
>> asked to do it on Fedora's bugzilla.
> Ah,
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:47:52 +0300,
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> No, the spam filter will be *in addition* to whatever is there
>> already. If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam
>> that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> No, the spam filter will be *in addition* to whatever is there
> already. If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam
> that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is
> moderated, t
Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members.
>> This setting was made before any of the current list admins were
>> present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more
>> courteous setting, and we have changed this now.
>
> Yes, that's bet
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:47:52 +0300,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> No, the spam filter will be *in addition* to whatever is there
> already. If the list remains subscription-only, there's still spam
> that goes through, the spam filter will help. And if the lists is
> moderated, the spam filte
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:05:33 +0300,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> So if anything, Reply-To munging would cause more private mail go to
> the mailing list (i.e. I typed 'r' in mutt, not 'g', but the mail went
> to the ml!)
That's pretty much what I said. But it has to be balanced against agai
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 22:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Anyway, if non-subscribers are not welcome, then I guess I'll just
> refrain from posting here just like everybody else, even when I'm
> asked to do it on Fedora's bugzilla.
Ah, so the hundreds of people who regularly contribute here are
On 06/07/2010 08:47, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 05/07/10 23:16, Thomas Taylor wrote:
>> --snip--
>>
>> And that attitude is going to make new linux users who have questions feel
>> unwanted on the list!
OK sure, go head over the OpenBSD mailing list, sit there for a week
then come back here and say
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 20:13 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Fact: the current system doesn't allow cross-posting
Nothing in the current system prevents cross-posting. It's explicitly
discouraged by the list Guidelines, but as we know some people do it
(and usually get jumped on). The rationale is
On 05/07/10 23:16, Thomas Taylor wrote:
>--snip--
>
> And that attitude is going to make new linux users who have questions feel
> unwanted on the list!
Not at all, I remember when fdisk sounded like a swear word to myself.
I subscribed, and the very fact of subscribing made me "newbie"
fell like
On 06/07/10 05:24, Tim wrote:
>
> The list becomes a potentially *large* source of spam, when rejecting
> mail to a third party.
Who can then report "list" for spamming them.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubs
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 05Jul2010 20:02, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> | On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Tim wrote:
> | > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 14:57 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> | >> In order to do that I have to subscribe, which takes more than a few
> | >>
On 07/05/2010 11:07 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Thomas Taylor wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:24:08 -0400
>> Tom H wrote:
>>
This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add
the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Thomas Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:24:08 -0400
> Tom H wrote:
>
>> > This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add
>> > the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen
>> > automatically.
>>
>> I couldn't disagre
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 15:29:44 -0400,
> Tom H wrote:
>>
>> It is much less problematic for "reply" to reply to the list,
>> especially if changing that behavior is solely meant to help those who
>> don't want to subscribe to it...
>
> T
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> What about allowing subscribers of f...@lists.f.o to be allowed to post
>> to b...@lists.f.o.
>
> That would help only if Reply-To wasn't munged.
>
> Otherwise when somebody repli
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> Also, what happens if I choose to stay subscribed, but decide to turn
>> mail delivery off? Well, I can send mails, but I will not get the
>> replies.
>>
>> So no, the drawbacks of Reply-T
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> What about allowing subscribers of f...@lists.f.o to be allowed to post
> to b...@lists.f.o.
That would help only if Reply-To wasn't munged.
Otherwise when somebody replies from b...@lists.f.o the reply would
only go to that ml, so the n
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> You certainly would have had your answer by now. I think you've now
> wasted time/effort on an extremely simple irritation (to you) that isn't
> going to change.
This is not about my problem; it's about other people not having to go
through th
Felipe Contreras:
>>> Public mailing lists should receive mail from *anybody*; if the poster
>>> is not subscribed, then the message should go through moderation. This
>>> is the truly open way.
Tim:
>> No thanks. If you want groups full of spam, there's usenet for that.
Felipe Contreras:
> Ther
On 07/05/2010 09:24 PM, Tim wrote:
> Todd Zullinger:
>>> Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members.
>>> This setting was made before any of the current list admins were
>>> present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more
>>> courteous setting, and we have ch
Todd Zullinger:
>> Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members.
>> This setting was made before any of the current list admins were
>> present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more
>> courteous setting, and we have changed this now.
Andre Robatino:
> Won't th
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 22:54 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> I don't think the downside of having the alias from the old list
> outweighs the benefits. And, we may be able to mitigate the downside
> with some smarts on the lists.fedoraproject.org side as well. It's
> just not been enough of a probl
Ed Greshko wrote:
> I think the suggestion was more to eliminate it as well as any
> redirection since enough time has elapsed since the move to
> fedoraproject.org. So, kill the alias as well as it has outlived
> its usefulness.
I don't think that's likely to happen. At the least, it's not
some
On 05Jul2010 18:25, Felipe Contreras wrote:
[...snip...]
| > (2) Most posts provoke discussion. If the original poster is not
| > subscribed to the list, they will probably get dropped from the
| > discussion at some point, and not realize the full benefit of the
| > discussion. Also, it's likely
On 05Jul2010 20:02, Felipe Contreras wrote:
| On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Tim wrote:
| > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 14:57 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
| >> In order to do that I have to subscribe, which takes more than a few
| >> bounces, and that's the problem.
| >
| > Something wrong with *you
On 07/06/2010 06:05 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>> Maybe its time to shut the old list off - will avoid some dup posts
>> too!
>>
> The old list is shut off. There is simply an alias @redhat.com to
> us...@lists.fedoraproject.org.
>
>
I think the suggestion was
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:24:08 -0400
Tom H wrote:
> > This way when a non-subscriber posts something, he doesn't have to add
> > the "Please CC me as I'm not in the mailing list"; it will happen
> > automatically.
>
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
> Posting to the list: If someone wants to benefit
Genes MailLists wrote:
> Maybe its time to shut the old list off - will avoid some dup posts
> too!
The old list is shut off. There is simply an alias @redhat.com to
us...@lists.fedoraproject.org.
--
ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
On 07/05/2010 05:39 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
o times the ml)
>
> This comes from some folks sending mail to the old
> fedora-l...@redhat.com address. I've not looked closely to see
> whether we can fix that up. It would likely take a little work at the
> system level on the mailman server and p
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Right, but I wonder if I send a mail to all the *-owner lists. Maybe
> the Reply-To would be munged and the threads will diverge.
The *-owner addresses are simply aliases. They are not mailing lists
themselves.
> I think it's much safer just to grep for all the admins a
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 20:44:59 +,
Andre Robatino wrote:
> Todd Zullinger pobox.com> writes:
>
> > Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members.
> > This setting was made before any of the current list admins were
> > present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejectio
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 14:57:33 +0300,
Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> Public mailing lists should receive mail from *anybody*; if the poster
> is not subscribed, then the message should go through moderation. This
> is the truly open way.
There are costs in doing that. Either in increased spam o
Todd Zullinger pobox.com> writes:
> Prior to today the list was set to discard posts from non-members.
> This setting was made before any of the current list admins were
> present AFAIK. I believe that sending a rejection is the more
> courteous setting, and we have changed this now.
Won't thi
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 15:29:44 -0400,
Tom H wrote:
>
> It is much less problematic for "reply" to reply to the list,
> especially if changing that behavior is solely meant to help those who
> don't want to subscribe to it...
Typically accidentally sending a message intended for a single pers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> wrote:
>>> The problem is not in the system.
>>
>> The sender has to realise that he/she has sent a private email! LOL
>
> Yeah, so? It's
On 07/06/2010 01:22 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/2010 07:57 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>>> I took a considerable amount of time writing that email, it's not nice
>>> for non-subscriber mails to just be dropped like that.
What about allowing subscribers of f...@lists.f.o to be allowed to post
to b...@lists.f.o.
The benefit of registration is the same - and it would allow an
occasional cross post without subscribing ?
gene/
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscri
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 21:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> So you are saying that it's not proven that people that do only one
> post can benefit the community?
No, I'm saying that it's not proven that EVERY person that does only one
post benefits the community. Not the same thing at all.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On the sign up page for the list:
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>> near the bottom:
>>> users list run by...
>>
>> That's only for the 'users' mailing list. I guess I would have
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> The problem is not in the system.
>
> The sender has to realise that he/she has sent a private email! LOL
Yeah, so? It's a user mistake, it's up to the user how to deal with it.
> It is
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> No. I am saying that if you are not willing to subscribe, you are not,
>> AFAIC, part of the community.
>
> So if somebody is participating in IRC, filing and solving bugs,
> maintaining pack
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
